University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Mercy Anne Coles: Socialite-qua-Historian

Today’s post explores the social atmosphere surrounding Confederation by examining some excerpts of the diary of Mercy Anne Coles. Coles may not have had a direct influence on Confederation but as a young woman she accompanied her father, the first Premier of Prince Edward Island (PEI), to social events and documented her experiences in detail.

In her upcoming book Miss Confederation: The Diary of Mercy Ann Coles, Anne McDonald argues that “without [Coles’] diary, ‘Confederation history is incomplete.’”[1] Her diary demonstrates that behind-the-scenes political networking was critical, which the record of official conference meetings in Charlottetown and Quebec did not include.[2]

As many business professionals will attest, social networking outside the office can offer opportunities such as getting a job, a mentor, or increased clientele. As law students, we are encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities such as rounds of golf or dinner engagements to build and strengthen relationships with future employers, colleagues, and clients. The old adage, “deals are made on the golf course” has some truth to it.[3]

As the daughter of a prominent politician, Coles interacted with the high powered drivers of Confederation. These included Sir John A. Macdonald, who may have flirted with her; George Brown, who described her as attractive and intelligent; and Dr. Charles Tupper, who treated her in his capacity as a physician.[4]

Some attendees used pre-Confederation social events as an opportunity to introduce their unmarried daughters to potential suitors.[5] Despite being quite popular among gentlemen at various dance balls and dinners, the young Ms. Coles’ social interactions might have been politically motivated, rather than romantically.[6] On one hand, she had many dance partners and men seemed to take kindly to her. On the other hand, as PEI journalist and politician Edward Whelan wrote:

[Politicians] are cunning fellows; and there’s no doubt that it is all done for a political purpose; they know if they can dance themselves into the affections of the wives and daughters of the country, the men will certainly become an easy conquest.[7]

Coles’ father needed a great deal of persuasion to buy into the idea of Confederation. As Premier of PEI, his agenda did not align well with that of the larger provinces.[8] Although her father and her family were well recognized, the parties did not serve the anticipated matchmaking function.[9]

Though history tends to be written by men and about men, the preservation of Mercy Coles’ diary demonstrates how women played an important role in recording history and indirectly influencing political moments, even before they had the right to vote.

 

[1] Christa Z Thomas, “Stepping Out”, Women of Confederation (17 November 2014), online: The Women of Confederation <women-of-confederation.ca/tag/mercy-ann-coles>.

[2] Gillian Goerz, “Mercy Anne Coles”, Historica Canada (2015), online: The Canadian Encyclopedia <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/mercy-anne-coles/>.

[3] RG, “Why Golfers Get Ahead,” The Economist (21 November 2011), online: <www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2011/11/golf-and-business>.

[4] Goerz, supra note 2; Thomas, supra note 1.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Goerz, supra note 2.

[7] Goerz, ibid; Thomas, supra note 1.

[8] Goerz, ibid.

[9] Ibid.

Enough about Queen Bey, let’s talk about Queen V!*

Having recently reviewed some prominent Fathers of Confederation, this week we focus on Mothers of Confederation. Without a doubt, the most prominent and important female influence of Confederation was Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria’s connection with Canada went beyond merely sitting as monarch over a colony. Her father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, lived in Quebec and the Maritimes for the better part of a decade.[1] Canada’s smallest province, Prince Edward Island, was named after him.

Queen Victoria was Canada’s ultimate political signatory to enact Confederation. It was an appealing mechanism with which to unite French- and English-speaking residents, to facilitate trade among the regions, and to stave off American invasion.[2] Some Canadian and British politicians reasoned that the US would be more likely to conquer Canada if the regions remained separate British colonies. Therefore, Confederation not only internally united Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, it also protected the region from external threats.

One of Queen Victoria’s first steps to uniting British North America was to ease tensions after the rebellion uprisings in Upper and Lower Canada.[3] The rebellions started in 1837, the year Victoria ascended to the throne, and continued to 1839. She granted amnesties to rebels as early as 1838, allowed the Governor General to issue special pardons in 1843, and granted completed pardons for anyone involved in the rebellions through the Amnesty Act in 1849.[4] One former rebel became a father of Confederation, which speaks to the Queen’s work in reconciliation.

In a further commitment to maintain harmony in her colony, Queen Victoria directly met with First Nations leaders before Confederation. Her children appear to have continued that commitment by visiting Canada and meeting with First Nations leaders to listen to political needs and concerns.[5]

Although her father and five of her children visited Canada, Queen Victoria never did.[6] Moreover, one critic wrote that Queen Victoria’s personal diary seems dismissive of major Canadian events.[7] On May 22, 1867, the Queen noted only briefly that she attended the final meeting to authorize Confederation. And on July 1st, 1867, Queen Victoria wrote of her daughter’s fifth wedding anniversary and of the weather, with no mention of Canada.[8]

Other historians note that the Queen never stopped grieving her husband’s death in 1861.[9] Perhaps, though committed to Canada’s political interests, she merely reflected in her personal journal without considering whether 150 years later we would analyze her private thoughts.

Whatever her motivation for her personal diary, Queen Victoria’s motivation for Confederation was echoed by those who were on the ground in British North America. Confederation had political motives that transcended those among the colonies. As Canada’s Queen, Victoria made her mark on Canada and we continue to celebrate her reign with the annual Victoria Day long weekend.

 

*Just kidding; we love Queen Bey.

[1] Arthur Bousfield, “Queen Victoria, 1837-1901: Mother of Confederation,” Canadian Royal Heritage Trust (2013), online: <crht.ca/queen-victoria-mother-of-confederation/>; Carolyn Harris, “Queen Victoria and Canada,” Queen’s Alumni Review, Queen’s University (2016), online: <www.queensu.ca/gazette/alumnireview/stories/queen-victoria-and-canada>.

[2] Library and Archives Canada, Government of Canada “How Canada was Formed,” Politics and Government, Library and Archives Canada online: <https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/kids/023002-1010-e.html>; Canada History, “The London Conference,” CanadaHistory.com (2013), online: <http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/confederation/London.html>.

[3] Harris, supra note 1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Randy Boswell, “Queen Victoria, the ‘Mother of Confederation,’ Made No Mention of the Event in her Diary,” Postmedia Network Inc (25 May 2012) Canada.com, online: <www.canada.com/news/Queen+Victoria+Mother+Confederation+made+mention+event+diary/6679733/story.html>.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Bousfield, supra note 1; Harris, supra note 1.

Someday We'll Find It, The Rainbow Connection

It is important to identify that none of the contributors to The Dominion self-identify as members of the LGBT community. We recognize that, today, we are writing about things that we haven't personally experienced and that our ability to competently write on this issue is limited. We also recognize that the abbreviation “LGBT” is considered by many to be incomplete. We have chosen to err on the side of simplicity and familiarity. It is not our intent to offend. We apologize for any shortcomings that appear below.

 

One might assume that LGBT rights in Canada were worse the further one delves back into our history. This would be incorrect. While LGBT rights in 1867 were nowhere near what they are today, it's important to note that things actually got a lot worse before they got better.

In 1867, there were “buggery” laws on the books,¹ and this crime was punishable by death in British North America. As abhorrent as this is, these were inherited laws from Great Britain and officials on this side of the pond simply didn't see fit to impose the punishment. While there were many people sentenced to death for this “crime,” there are no records of this sentence being carried out. Instead, the convicted were pardoned or had their sentences commuted.

As unjust as this position was, in 1948 the Criminal Code was amended to label gay men as “criminal sexual psychopaths”, as well as to provide for indeterminate prison sentences.² In the 1950s and 1960s, a pseudoscientific device known as the “fruit machine” was employed to identify gay men.  These men were deemed to be ineligible for government jobs, including the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.³ This signified a low point for LGBT rights in Canada.

In 1968, Minister of Justice John Turner introduced The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, an omnibus bill that decriminalized homosexuality.⁴ His predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, who had introduced an earlier version of the Bill, famously commented that “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.

Of course, mere decriminalization was insufficient, and systemic discrimination against LGBT people was still a problem. It still is, but things have started to get better. The advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms⁵ in 1982 brought forth important protection against discrimination for segments of the population that were identified as minority groups.⁶ Sexual orientation was NOT included.

It was not until 1995⁷ that the Supreme Court of Canada “read-in” sexual orientation to s. 15 of the Charter. In 1998⁸ the Court went a step further and ensured that provincial human rights statutes needed to be interpreted as if sexual orientation was deemed to be a prohibited ground for discrimination. This was held to be so, regardless of the intention of the provincial governments when crafting their legislation. The next year, the Court ruled on the landmark case M. v. H.⁹ allowing for same sex marriage in Canada, later resulting in the federal Civil Marriage Act¹⁰ which codified this right.

While these measures have undoubtedly improved life for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people the battle for equality has just begun for those with non-traditional gender expressions and identities. An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is currently before Parliament to add protections from discrimination on these grounds.¹¹

Legislation is not enough. The systemic discrimination that has resulted in unfair treatment to these minority groups are not going to disappear by the mere stroke of a pen. While good law is indeed necessary, it is not sufficient.

To those of our readers in law school, legal professions, politics, and others who occupy positions of power or are going to in the future, consider this a call to arms. If our country is going to keep advancing against intolerance, we need to help lead the charge. We must decide how we are to use the influence that will invariably be entrusted to us, and we must do so fearlessly.

Intolerance and hate have dominated for far too long. For what it's worth, we're choosing love. We hope that you'll join us.

 

¹ Consolidated Statutes of Canada 1859, c 91, s 22.
² RSC 1927, c 36.
³ Gary W Kinsman, Dieter K Buse & Mercedes Steedman, Whose National Security?: Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (Canada: Between the Lines, 2000).
⁴ SC 1968-69, c 38.
⁵ Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
⁶ Ibid at s 15.
⁷ Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513.
⁸ Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493.
⁹ [1999] 2 SCR 3.
¹⁰ SC 2005, c 33.
¹¹ Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2016.

Then and Now: Judicial Review

To continue this week’s theme of throwbacks, today’s post highlights a lecture on the evolution of judicial review through Canada’s 150 years. The Friends of the University of Alberta presented the Honourable Justice Russell Brown at the 2017 H. M. Tory Lecture this week. Justice Brown was an award-winning professor at the Faculty of Law until his meteoric rise to the bench starting in 2013.[1] After approximately a year and change at each of the Courts of Queen’s Bench and Appeal of Alberta, he now sits as a puisne justice at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Brown discussed the importance of judicial review in light of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly, the BNA Act) and the Constitution Act, 1982, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[2]

Canada’s separation of powers includes the executive branch (Prime Minister and Cabinet or Premier and Cabinet, as well as unelected government employees), the legislative branch (federal Members of Parliament or provincial Members of Legislative Assemblies), and the politically independent judicial branch. Judicial review occurs when a court convenes to consider the lawfulness of executive powers or legislation. Often, the primary legislation that delegates power to administrative bodies, such as the Human Rights Tribunal or the Workers’ Compensation Board, will allow a party to appeal decisions of that body to a court.[3]

Before the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, the BNA Act gave Parliament the sovereignty to enact any law it desired because the Constitution was enacted to be “similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.”[4] Technically, Parliament still enjoys this right. However, in 1982 the new Constitution was given “Primacy” or supremacy over all other laws enacted by legislative or executive power.[5] This means that Canada’s courts can review legislation to ensure that it does not conflict with Canada’s body of constitutional law (including the Charter).

Between 1867 and 1981, courts reviewed legislation primarily to ensure that the Canadian federal system was maintained: that federal Parliament and provincial legislatures enacted laws according to their powers under sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, respectively.

From 1982 onward, the judiciary has taken on a more involved role. The introduction of the Charter as part of the supreme law of Canada requires that courts ensure there is a proper and lawful limit to the legislative infringement on the rights and freedoms of individuals.

But rights and freedoms are not absolute; they are subject to reasonable limits as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.[6] Therefore, courts determine not only whether a law infringes on Charter rights, but whether it can be justifiably upheld.

Sometimes judges are accused of judicial activism; of overstepping their role as mere interpreters of the law. As Justice Brown put it, however, judges are more than just interpreters. They are legal referees in this law-versus-Charter-value game. Although legislators tend to enact laws that reflect the will of their electorate, sometimes Canada needs unelected constitutional law specialists to put the interests of, say, minority interests before that of written laws. For Justice Brown, this is true law and it is has evolved beyond interpreting merely questions of jurisdiction.

 

[1] Dean Paul Paton, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, in his introduction of Brown J, HM Tory Lecture (2017).

[2] 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (UK) [Constitution Act, 1867]; being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982 c 11 (UK) [Constitution Act, 1982].

[3] Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, s 37(1); Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA c W-15, s 13.4(1).  

[4] J Noel Lyon, “The Central Fallacy of Canadian Constitutional Law,” 22 McGill Law Journal 40, online: <www.lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/5264739-02.pdf> at 1; Constitution Act, 1867, supra note 2, Preamble, at para 1.

2000, c W-2.15, s 13.4(1).

[5] Constitution Act, 1982, supra note 2, s 52.

[6] Constitution Act, 1982, ibid, s 1.

Throwing it Back on Tuesday: People Edition

We continue our week examining cultural changes in Canada over the last 150 years with today’s discussion on Canadian demographics. Although the British North America Act does not directly relate to how diverse our population is, Canadian citizens elect politicians and leaders who influence our laws and political climate. As our social makeup changes, so do our values and, in turn, our laws. Today we focus on the people living in the country to understand how Confederation and today’s political climate evolved.

 

When we look back to 1867, Canada’s population looks strikingly different than it does today. Today, Canada prides itself on its multiculturalism and welcoming of immigrants. A flashback to the people of 1867 paints a much different picture. At the time of Confederation, 79% of the Canadian population were born in Canada.¹ The majority of the country’s population grew up with similar cultural and religious values, with Roman Catholicism and Protestants dominating all other religious beliefs.² These religions were so dominant early on in Canada’s formation that our own national anthem even features a reference to “God.” This has created some controversy recently as to whether our national anthem should be modified to reflect our changing social landscape with respect to individual religious views.

 

The immigrant population in 1867 was also widely different than current trends. The biggest immigrant group consisted of French settlers, with English, Welsh, Irish, and Scottish people also making their way to Canada.³ The immigration population at the time consisted of mainly Caucasian Europeans. The majority of these newcomers settled into Upper Canada at the time, with the rest mainly finding a home in Lower Canada.⁴ European immigrants certainly influenced Confederation in 1867, however Indigenous populations inhabited this land long before. By the year of Confederation, historians estimate that 100,000 to 125,000 Indigenous people were living in Canada.⁵

 

When we fast-forward to life in 2017, a much different picture of Canadian people exists. By 2006, Canada had reached an immigrant population of 6.2 million people, which equates to 19.8% of the entire population.⁶ If current trends continue, the immigrant population by the end of 2017 is expected to reach nearly 22% of the population.⁷ Although the percentage of immigrants has remained relatively stable around 20% since Confederation, their origins have become more diverse. Today, immigrants come from every continent in the world, the majority of which are of Asian descent, not European.⁸ With the increase in immigrants, the country has seen a surge in the number of unique languages, cultures, and religions. Specifically, Chinese immigrants have become the leading visible minority group, accounting for roughly 1 million people throughout the country.⁹ Indigenous populations have also substantially grown since Canada’s creation. The 2011 national census reports, that 1,400,685 people (4.3% of the population), consider themselves Aboriginal and over 60 Indigenous languages exist.¹⁰

 

Religion has also changed within the last 150 years. Roman Catholicism is still the most widely practiced religion throughout Canada, representing 38.7% of the entire population.¹¹ While Roman Catholicism continues to have a widespread following, it is not as dominant as it was during Confederation. Further, a variety of new religions are currently practiced throughout the country. Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism are now common throughout Canada, with 7.2% of Canada's population reporting practicing one of these.¹² The increase in religious diversity is likely the reason some Canadians believe the inclusion of word “God” in our national anthem is no longer appropriate as it tends to connote a Christian reference.

 

Canada is becoming a more diverse place. In 2017, it is hard to pinpoint whom a Canadian is or what they might look or sound like.

 

 

¹ Statistics Canada, “Canadian Statistics in 1867”, (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2009), online: </www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb07/acyb07_0002-eng.htm>.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Laura Aylsworth & Frank Trovato, “Demography of Indigenous People” (1 February 2012), The Canadian Encyclopedia, online <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-demography/>.

⁶ Statistics Canada, “Some facts about the demographic and ethnocultural composition of the population”, (Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 2008), online: <www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/4129904-eng.htm#2>.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Aylsworth & Trovato, supra note 5.

¹¹ Statistics Canada, “2011 National Household Survey: Immigration, place of birth, citizenship, ethnic origin, visible minorities, language and religion”, (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011), online: <www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130508/dq130508b-eng.htm>.

¹² Ibid.

 

Music Monday: Throwback to 1867

As a further tribute to our faculty’s annual Law Show this past weekend, this week’s blog theme will focus on differences in pop culture between 1867 and 2017. It’s the week of throwbacks! We will compare people who lived in and around 1867 with people today who make similar cultural contributions, 150 years later. Though not directly in concert with the BNA Act, it is evident that culture and politics intertwine. To kick off this throwback week, we begin with a musical comparison.

Considering that popular music styles evolved quickly in the 20th century, it’s safe to say that music was drastically different in 1867. In western music culture, it was the romantic period. Music was expressive, emotional, and it produced legends like Beethoven and Schumann (Robert and Clara!). They had only pens, paper, and their own minds and experiences to inspire their music.

Nowadays, our musical influences include Justin Bieber, Kanye West, and Beyonce, not to mention the endless sources on the internet from which artists can get inspiration. We have digital online music writing programs and online instruments, making music easier than ever to compose, perform, and share. John Adams, a 20th and 21st century minimalist composer, warned about the overuse of technology in music composition, stating,

“We’re in danger of an overflow of extremely mediocre music… partly because composing has become dangerously easy. Everyone can carry around software programs on a laptop and compose a new piece in a single evening. But the trouble is, of course, that the software dictates the parameters of what you can do, how you can think”.¹

While there are downfalls in the modern age of music composition, music is unique in that the finished product can exist forever, electronically. Composers and musicians are not just working with and against their contemporaries; they do so also with those who came before them. In this 21st century contemporary post-modern era of music, we see composers taking influence from all areas of music, and from all time periods to give listeners new experiences.

For example, Adams’ work On the Transmigration of Souls is a choral piece that pays tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. The song does not follow any obvious musical structure, and incorporates whispering, noise, and other non-traditional sounds throughout the composition. As a young child, I performed this work with my choir, and I can attest to the fact that it was not “typical”. In fact, I can recall many rehearsals during which we all struggled to remember the lyrics and flow to this 25 minute-long piece, because to us, it didn’t make musical sense. It incorporated victims’ names and quotes from family members of victims, changing themes and never staying in one “place” for too long. At the time, it seemed like the epitome of post-modern non-sensical music.

Had I dug deeper, I would have discovered that it wasn’t such a far stretch from works of the 19th century. Adams has stated in interviews that he has an obsession with composer Ludwig van Beethoven; that, “we [all] have music that we love so much that we kind of want to get under the skin of that composer, for me taking not so much melodies but just harmonic fragments”.² Adams uses his privileged position as a musician who follows some of our culture’s best composers to incorporate their art into his; creating something new from something old.

Fittingly, we performed On the Transmigration of Souls alongside Beethoven’s Symphony No 9, a 19th century classic. Adams’ piece is a commemoration of those who died in 9/11, intended to provide a “memory space”³ where listeners can be alone.⁴ In contrast, Beethoven’s 9th is a rejoice of freedom. These two songs are performed together all over North America, and tell a story of oppression and mourning and eventual release.⁵

Comparing Adams with Beethoven is only one example of how music between then and now can differ, but still be complementary. By no means do I wish to hear One Direction juxtaposed with Schubert, but to isolate music from 1867 as totally different and irreconcilable with music from today could be a mistake. For choir nerds like me, the ability of musicians to pull influence from 150 years ago is exciting: it leaves open endless possibilities for composers of the future.

¹Guy Dammann, “We Are All Living in Fear”, The Guardian (15 October 2008), online: <www.theguardian.com/music/2008/oct/15/usa>.

²NPR Staff, “John Adams Mines Beethoven’s Mind”, NPR Music (10 November 2015), online: <www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2015/11/10/450560466/john-adams-mines-beethovens-mind>.

³Tom Huizenga, “John Adams’ Memory Space: ‘On the Transmigration of Souls’”, NPR Music (10 September 2011), online: <www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2011/09/10/140341459/john-adams-memory-space-on-the-transmigration-of-souls>.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Benjamin Carlson, “What Does Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony Mean”, The Atlantic (7 September 2010), online: <www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/09/what-does-beethovens-ninth-symphony-mean/62556/>.

Should the State Criminalize Family Choices?

Canada is known as a country of immigrants and prides itself on its multicultural heritage.  When immigrants migrate to this country they bring with them many unique beliefs, customs and traditions. Polygamy is a custom practiced overseas, but has been outlawed in Canada since the 1800’s. The practice recently made its way into mainstream media and the courts. In addition to some immigrants who bring polygamist practices from their home countries, members of a Mormon community in British Columbia have also been featured in the media. Two of their main members have recently been charged with polygamy and other criminal offences. Coverage of immigrant cases and the British Columbia charges has created a very interesting Charter question. If polygamy is part of a particular religion, do these laws violate section 2(a) of the Charter?

Background to Polygamist Laws in Canada

Polygamy has been a criminal offence in Canada since 1892 under the Criminal Code.¹ Polygamy is currently illegal under s. 293 of the Criminal Code. The law criminalizes any marital union exceeding two people, and also criminalizes celebrating or assisting these unions.² In addition, the common law has long considered marriage “as the voluntary union… of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”³ The common law definition of marriage evolved with the recognition of same-sex marriage throughout Canada.⁴ However, the underlying principle of marriage being a union between two people still remains and is recognized in section 2 of the Civil Marriage Act.⁵

Practicing Polygamy

Little research exists to determine the number of polygamous unions in Canada. In Ontario, polygamist marriages that are validly entered into in a person’s home country may be granted legal recognition.⁶ While polygamy is federally outlawed, the Ontario Family Law Act has allowed for this minor exception for immigrant families under s. 1(2).⁷ The province likely implemented this legislation to allow polygamous families to remain united when coming to Canada. Without this protection, only one spouse would be granted legal marriage rights upon immigration to Canada, creating a problematic family structure for individuals who have always lived this way. Some research suggests that there are a few polygamist families who have sought immigration to Ontario for this reason. Others have had to seek immigration with only one recognized spouse, because polygamous marriages are not recognized or legally protected in other provinces.⁸

The most renowned practicing polygamist group in Canada is a community of Fundamental Mormons residing in Bountiful, British Columbia.⁹ Recently, two members of this group were charged with polygamy and human trafficking of under-aged members of the religious community.¹⁰ For the polygamy charges there is a possibility that the men may make Charter claims that Canada’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional. If this happens, changes to the Civil Marriage Act and Criminal Code may also be required.  

Charter Issues

The main question arising is whether Canada’s polygamy laws violate s. 2(a) of the Charter. Under s. 2(a) individuals are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion.¹¹ If polygamy is part of a religious tradition, it is possible for these groups to argue the Civil Marriage Act and Criminal Code are discriminatory based on their religious beliefs.  Beverly Baines, a law professor at Queen’s University believes that if the issue ever reaches the Supreme Court of Canada it will be hard to uphold the current polygamy laws.¹²

While the men from Bountiful are also charged with child trafficking, that in and of itself does not equate to polygamy.¹³ The problem with the current framework is that these men are being charged, among other acts, for their family practices. If the polygamy laws were abolished, the men would still be charged with their crimes against the children in Bountiful. Baines’ main focus is on gender equality, and hopes that women in polygamous relationships will have the chance to speak out as to whether polygamy is a harmful and abusive practice.¹⁴ If the women and children in these relationships believe the practice, excluding other criminal actions, is not abusive then the government should have no right criminalizing family choices.¹⁵ After all, at one point in time it was illegal to be in a same-sex marriage, a practice that is now widely accepted worldwide.

 

¹ Bala et al, “An International Review of Polygamy: Legal and Policy Implications for Canada” in Angela Campbell, ed, Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2005) 1 at 3.

² Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 293.

³ Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), LR 1 PD 130 at 133.

⁴ Bala, supra note 1 at 3.

⁵ Civil Marriage Act, SC 2005, c 33, s 2.

⁶ Bala, supra note 1 at 3.

⁷ Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F3, s 1(2).

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Jason Proctor, “B.C. polygamists, accused of taking child brides to U.S., face trial”, CBC News (21 November 2016), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-bountiful-oler-blackmore-1.3860888>.

¹⁰ Daphne Bramham, “Polygamist parents from Bountiful, British Columbia, go on trial for child trafficking”, National Post (22 November 2016), online: <news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/polygamist-parents-from-bountiful-british-columbia-go-on-trial-for-child-trafficking>.

¹¹ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(a), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

¹² Rachel Browne, “Feminists call for decriminalization of polygamy”, Macleans (15 August 2014), online: <www.macleans.ca/news/canada/in-wake-of-bountiful-charges-feminists-call-for-decriminalization-of-polygamy/>.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

Alice in Wonderland: It’s Not Just Fiction

This Friday and Saturday, Law Show, a not-for-profit variety show at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law will be performing “Alice in Wonderlaw”. Though many of us are familiar with the story of Alice in Wonderland, the name has a unique connotation when discussed in the context of the Canadian law. In the literal sense, Alice in Wonderland is a tale in the nonsense literary genre.¹The story follows a young girl who falls down a rabbit hole, meeting interesting and strange characters on her journey to return home. Legally, courts in many countries have associated the title with laws which are illogical. The term has become associated with laws and policies which are unrealistic, imaginary or impossible to implement.

In Canada, Alice in Wonderland (AIW) comes into play when grappling with many aspects of our legal system. In the context of aboriginal law, AIW qualities are rampant in both specific and comprehensive aboriginal land claim litigation.² In dealing with comprehensive claims, these qualities are seen from the Canadian and Quebec governments’ failures to honor the James Bay and Northern Quebec Settlement Agreement (JBNQA).³ In Namagoose v Robinson⁴, a court case that dealt with governmental non-compliance with the JBNQA, the Crown argued that the treaty was not statute nor was it ratified, so the government was not required to comply with its directives. In its decision, the court described the Crown’s argument as “ludicrous and incomprehensible”⁵, and therefore AIW-like.

Specific claims, unlike comprehensive aboriginal land claims, are based on a specific claim of non-compliance with a treaty provision;⁶ comprehensive claims are based on claims before British sovereignty. Specific claims are dealt with under the Specific Claims Tribunal Act⁷, for which the claims process has been deemed “Wonderlandish”.⁸ All claims under $150 million go through the tribunal, but the monetary worth of the claim has not yet been determined when that decision is made. How can a case be determined to claim less than $150 million, when the claim itself doesn't quantify an amount of money? Secondly, both the claim money, and administrative costs are paid out of the same grant. Therefore, it’s possible that the grant money has been spent on administration of the tribunal, leaving a dry pot for prevailing parties. In these respects, the government has channeled their inner Alice and gone down the rabbit hole with their policies and arguments, leaving all those involved in the dark.

AIW themes even take root in basic legal issues. Many legal scholars and professionals have criticized standard form terms on products and questioned whether they could really be contracts:

“Almost no one reads the terms… and for good reason: the product or service is necessary; the standard form will not be changed, since any attempt at negotiation would be futile; other suppliers are likely to insist on similar terms. As Radin says, there is an “Alice in Wonderland” quality in supposing that these forms are contracts.”⁹

In another another area, Alice is discussed in reference to photographic evidence in criminal trials. It is AIW-like, says D.S. Gardner, that x-ray evidence is admitted easily when it is impossible to ensure its accuracy.¹⁰ In contrast, photographic evidence is subject to a higher level of scrutiny even though each photo taken is independently verifiable.

All this is to say that that Canadian law is not perfect. There are many policies that are fantastical, arguments that do not make sense, and laws that are outdated and unrealistic. Alice appears in many areas of the law, and just like the Lewis Caroll tale, it is unlikely that she will go away anytime soon.

^{*Edited on February 1st.} 

¹Randy J Maniloff, “Alice in Wonderland Provides Proof That the Legal System Makes No Sense”, LexisNexis Legal Newsroom (22 April 2014) online: <www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/insurance/b/insurance-coverage/archive/2014/04/22/alice-in-wonderland-provides-proof-that-the-legal-system-makes-no-sense.aspx?Redirected=true>.

²Michael Posluns, “Aboriginal Land Claims: The Alice in Wonderland Dimension of the Canadian Judicial System”, SLAW (27 October 2011), online:  <http://www.slaw.ca/2011/10/27/aboriginal-land-claims-the-alice-in-wonderland-dimension-of-the-canadian-judicial-system/>.

³An Act Approving the Agreement Concerning James Bay and Northern Quebec, CQLR c C-67.

⁴Namagoose v Robinson, FCTD, 1991 FCJ No 904, action No T-451-91.

⁵Supra, note 2.

⁶Michael Posluns, “Specific Claims: The Alice in Wonderland Dimension of the Canadian Judicial System, Part 2”, SLAW, (25 January 2012), online: <http://www.slaw.ca/2012/01/25/specific-claims-the-alice-in-wonderland-dimension-of-the-canadian-judicial-system-part-2/>.

⁷Specific Claims Tribunal Act, SC 2008, c 22.

⁸Supra, note 6.

⁹Anthony Dugan, Jacob S. Ziegel & Jassmin Girgis, “Review Essay: The Problem of Standard Form Contracts: A Retreat to Formalism” (2013) 53:3 CBLJ 475 (WestlawNext Canada).

¹⁰Kent W. Roach et al, “Photographic Evidence: Its Probative Value at Trial and the Judicial Discretion to Exclude it From Evidence” (1973-1974) 16:2 CLQ 149 (WestlawNext Canada).

Ice on Whyte celebrates Canada 150

The Dominion is grateful for its readers nationally and internationally. Because we are based in Edmonton, we will promote and review events in Edmonton that celebrate Canada 150. We will also report on the Centre for Constitutional Studies events that feature excellent and interesting lecturers.

If you’re not in Edmonton, our event reviews are still designed to educate or entertain you. And if you’re elsewhere in Canada, check out Canada150.ca for events near you. 

Today’s post reviews Ice on Whyte, an annual ice-carving competition near Whyte Avenue with submissions from expert carvers around the world! It is located on Tommy Banks Way, which is fitting because Tommy Banks is a musician, former Canadian senator, and boasts a doctorate in laws and being awarded the Order of Canada. Events continue this coming weekend: Thursday and Friday 2pm to 10pm; Saturday and Sunday 10am to 10pm.

As is evident from the name, Ice on Whyte features a lot of ice. Whereas some Edmontonians might wish for warmer Januaries, the elaborate ice sculptures need the current temperatures to stay below zero for just a few more days.

The festival is mostly family friendly, but if you are looking for an 18+ environment, keep your eyes peeled for adults-only entertainment in the entertainment tent (at 2pm it turns into the Edmonton Beer Geeks Anonymous saloon). On Friday, January 27th, guests were treated to a vaudeville-style show with burlesque dancers and a contortionist/escape artist. The opening act, comedy duo Bud and Yolanda, set the evening’s bawdy tone with an upbeat song about an unfortunate, friendly cat; complete with double-entendre and a Trump joke.

  When the entertainment tent is not limited to an 18+ audience, it is open to minors. The “Ordinary People… Extraordinary Stories” exhibits recognize history made by notable Canadians, such as Alex Decoteau: member of the Cree nation, Olympic athlete, soldier, and the first Indigenous police officer in Canada. He attained the rank of Sergeant the Edmonton Police Service and died serving his country during the second battle of Passchendaele in World War I.

Across the fair grounds, the Second Cup Coffee igloo offers coffee for a $2 donation and hot chocolate for $1, as well as hosts quality local live music. Behind the igloo, both kids and adults can enjoy the giant ice-slide. Actors role-play to share history from Confederation-era Canada, especially appropriate for this year’s celebrations. Sit down for a fireside chat or climb into the giant canoe and pretend to paddle down the North Saskatchewan River. Please note that actually paddling down the North Saskatchewan in January is generally considered to be unwise.

Next Sunday, the tent will host the Old Strathcona Farmers Market Stew Off. If you can’t make the stew off, several food trucks are on site daily to take care of your hunger.

In addition to daily crafts, test out your carving skills with ice-carving challenges for kids and adults. Grab a hot chocolate and enjoy a sleigh ride, or watch the fascinating skill of the blacksmith demonstration. No matter your age or interests, this winter festival showcases some great Canadian talent and culture. This 1-page festival guide will help you plan your visit.

The Forgotten Other Cartier: a Man who Loved the Sound of his own Voice

Sir George-Étienne Cartier, son of Jacques Cartier III, grandson of Jacques Cartier II, and great-grandson of Jacques Cartier I; no relation to explorer Jacques Cartier.[1]

Montreal lawyer and politician George-Étienne Cartier was born 350 years after Jacques Cartier, the St. Lawrence River navigator and French settler. Before moving to Montreal, Sir Cartier grew up in Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu, a small town near Montreal where his family had lived for three generations.

As an adult, he enjoyed Montreal’s elite social scene and apparently loved the sound of his own voice. In fact, he once spoke for 13 hours in Parliament.[2] At both English and French social events, he would entertain guests by singing songs he wrote himself.

Although Sir John A. Macdonald is often hailed as the architect of Canada, Sir Cartier may have been the stronger force driving Confederation.[3] Even Macdonald is reported to have stated that Cartier, his co-premier of the Province of Canada, was the true Father of Confederation.[4]

Political and Legal Career

Cartier articled as a law student with MLA Edouard Rodier, member of the Patriote (rebel) Party, but delved into politics even before he was admitted to the Bar of Lower Canada in 1835. He worked to elect to legislature Patriote Party members Louis-Joseph Papineau and Robert Nelson; later joining them in the 1837-1839 Papineau Rebellion.[5] Cartier was charged with treason for his part in the failed rebellion and took exile in the United States. He returned after both swearing his allegiance to the Queen and when the colonial governor annulled the charges.[6] Unfortunately, he remained “a politically incorrect personage” and never shared the same level of praise in Quebec as does Jacques Cartier or in Canada as does Macdonald.[7]

Cartier nevertheless had a remarkable political career. He was elected in 1848 to the Legislative Assembly and strongly represented his constituents and French Canada.[8] He rewrote property laws, created a modern civil code, set up primary schools for Catholics and Protestants, oversaw the Hudson’s Bay Company negotiations to purchase Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory, and helped negotiate the creation of the province of Manitoba.[9]

Conflict of Interest

Sir John A., even with his reputation for imbibement, was perhaps a more suitable choice to embody the legacy as Canada’s Father of Confederation. Cartier further fell from favour in 1873 when he was implicated in the Pacific Scandal, a “cash-for-contracts” scheme where he accepted political donations from his railway promoter client.[10] Cartier acted as legal counsel for the Grand Trunk Railway and prevented US railways from taking over the Canadian Pacific Railway project. However, his political campaign was largely funded by this client, which received the government railway contract.[11] This ended his political career. He died later that year of a kidney illness.[12]

Confederation

Despite, or perhaps due to, Cartier’s commitment to French-Canadian nationality, Confederation was a high priority for him.[13] Confederation was a means to unite Upper and Lower Canada without assimilating the French settlers into English culture; to unite the British colonies in defence against the US; and to develop the intercolonial and pacific railways without US intervention.[14] Cartier took part in the London, Quebec, and Charlottetown Conferences to convince the Queen and other lawmakers that Confederation was the right decision. In 1867, as Macdonald became the first Prime Minister of Canada, Cartier became the first Minister of Militia and Defence and occasionally stood in for Prime Minister Macdonald when necessary.[15]

Clearly, Cartier had a voice that could not be silenced—while he lived. Whether he was singing to entertain his friends, rallying votes, or negotiating political instruments that would shape the political boundaries of the country, people listened to him. Unfortunately, his two political transgressions likely downgraded his legacy in the history books.

This lesser-known Father of Confederation wraps up this week’s posts. Next week, we’ll tell you about the Ice on Whyte festival that celebrates Canada 150. In a few more weeks, we’ll write about the Women of Confederation, including Sir Cartier’s long-time lover, Luce Cuvillier. Stay tuned!

[1] “Sir George-Étienne Cartier National Historic Site of Canada,” National Historic Sites (4 March 2014), online: Parks Canada <www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/qc/etiennecartier/natcul/natcul1.aspx> [Parks Canada].

[2] “Fathers of Confederation: George-[É]tienne Cartier”, Canada: A Peoples History, CBC (2001), online: CBC <http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP8CH3PA2LE.html> [CBC].

[3] Ibid; Alastair Sweeny, “Confederation’s True Father? George-Étienne Cartier” (3 January 2014), online: The Globe and Mail <www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/confederations-true-father-george-etienne-cartier/article16177890/>.

[4] Sweeny, ibid.

[5] Parks Canada, supra note 1.

[6] CBC, supra note 2.

[7] Sweeny, supra note 3. If you ever go to Montreal, you must visit Place Jacques-Cartier: www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/tour/etape6/eng/6fena.htm. It’s beautiful.

[8] CBC, supra note 2.

[9] CBC, supra note 2; People: Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Library and Archives Canada (2 May 2005), online: Government of Canada <https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/023001-4000.12-e.html> [Library and Archives].

[10] Library and Archives, ibid.

[11] Sweeny, supra note 3.

[12] “Confederation: George-Étienne Cartier,” A Country by Consent, online: Canada History Project <www.canadahistoryproject.ca/1867/1867-07-ge-cartier.html>.

[13] Parks Canada, supra note 1.

[14] Sweeny, supra note 3.

[15] Parks Canada, supra note 1.

William Henry Pope: Father of Confederation & A Great Beard Too

William Henry Pope was born May 29, 1825 in Bedeque, Prince Edward Island (PEI), and later died on October 7, 1879.¹ A man of many talents and great intelligence, Pope was a politician, journalist, lawyer, judge, and land agent throughout his life.² The man had more successful careers than most people can hope for in five lifetimes. That person in law school that is involved in every club, seems to be at every event and is also probably a Dean’s Lister; this was William Henry Pope.

Pope received his post-secondary education in England where his father had originally emigrated from in 1819.³ After receiving his law degree, Pope returned to his native land of Canada to article under Edward Palmer back in PEI.⁴ After being called to the bar in 1847, Pope began a successful land agent practice.⁵ His practice became notorious after a few questionable business decisions took place. Pope’s father-in-law falsely convinced a client that the Liberal government at the time would not be interested in purchasing the client’s land.⁶ This caused the client to sell the property to Pope and his business partners for a mere $14,000, who then flipped the property to the Liberal government for nearly double the price.⁷ The deal was dubious, almost on the verge of fraud, but it cemented Pope as a legendary businessman. And we wonder why lawyers often get bad reputations in popular culture?

Fast forward into the 1850s, Pope moved away from his land agent practice, and began a political career. Pope was one of the few Prince Edward Island supporters of Confederation, which led to a deep feud with fellow PEI politician and former legal mentor Edward Palmer.⁸ Both men attended the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, with Palmer adamantly against Confederation and Pope in favour.⁹ As a result, the Conservative Party in PEI underwent deep-rooted conflict with regards to a united Canada. The popular vote favoured Palmer becoming Premier of the province, with William Henry Pope (and fellow ally Colonel Gray) needing to accept the harsh reality that Confederation was not popular amongst Islanders.¹⁰

Throughout the 1860s, Pope’s political career began to dwindle. It was rather unexciting until he was appointed to the bench in 1873. Pope was appointed by John A. MacDonald’s government to Prince County Court that year.¹¹ As a judge, Pope focussed extensively on pushing for Prince Edward Island’s inclusion in a united Canada.¹² Pope aggressively advocated this position even when it was still unpopular to do so. His passion for Confederation was evident throughout his judicial career, and likely impacted many of his decisions. In this role, Pope’s legal record was outstanding, with only two decisions out of thousands ever being appealed.¹³

With his death, Pope leaves behind an impressive legacy. Pope’s admirable career as a judge seems to make up for questionable land agent tactics nearly 30 years prior. Further, he will always be remembered as one of the few Islanders willing to stand up for Confederation, and help push the country into a united state.

 

 

¹ Ian R Robertson, “William Henry Pope” (16 January 2008), The Canadian Encyclopedia, online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/william-henry-pope/> [Robertson, “William”].

² Ibid.

³ Robertson, “Pope, William Henry”, online: (2003) 10 Dictionary of Canadian Biography <www.biographi.ca/en/bio/pope_william_henry_10E.html> [Robertson, “Pope”].

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Robertson, “William” supra note 1.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Robertson, “Pope” supra note 3.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

Sir Alexander Campbell: Father of Confederation and Trusted Advisor

Sir Alexander Campbell was born on March 9, 1822 in Yorkshire, England.[1] A year later, his family moved to Canada, moving around until they settled in Kingston, Ontario in 1836. It was there that Campbell was eventually called to the bar. As a young boy, he received a high standard of education, during which he studied French, among other things.[2]  Unknown to him at the time, his French education would later help facilitate his political career. Once called to the bar, Campbell articled under John A. Macdonald and practiced with him for some time after, becoming his law partner in 1843.[3] The partnership dissolved, however, in 1849 when both men decided to enter politics. Regardless, their relationship stayed intact and would remain very important throughout Campbell’s political career.

It was not until 1850 that Campbell entered the political area, becoming an alderman in Kingston. He held that position for two years, after which he left for the national scene, though he returned to municipal politics years later. After proving to be a powerful figure in Kingston politics, he was elected to the Legislature of Canada in 1858 for the Cataraqui district. Three years later, Macdonald contacted Campbell to become a member of his cabinet. He refused, as Macdonald would not include other Conservatives in his cabinet. Campbell instead served a short stint as speaker of the house in 1863.

In 1864 he was given an opportunity to form government following Adam Johnston Fergusson Blair’s failure to do the same. Unfortunately, Campbell failed, too. He was not reputed to be a leader, and his failure reflected that characterization.[4] Rather, he was thought of as an manager. Specifically, he was a useful, organized and safe person to have around, and politicians recognized those qualities. Following his failure to form government, Campbell secured a position as the Commissioner of Crown Lands, a major political position in Canada at the time.[5] As Commissioner, he attended the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. It was there that he gained his status as a ‘Father of Confederation’. Campbell viewed the conferences as an “opportunity to influence thought”[6] and there he advocated for Confederation. He was one of eight delegates sent to the conferences to represent the Province of Canada.[7] 

After Confederation in 1867, Campbell was called to the Senate. He served in many other important governmental roles including Postmaster General, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of Justice.[8] However, after 1867, he never again ran for elected office. He also led the opposition in the Senate for many years, which he left in 1887 to become the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, a position he held until his death.[9]

In 1885, when Louis Riel was captured, Campbell served as Minister of Justice.[10] Campbell insisted that Riel be tried in Regina, rather than Winnipeg. A Winnipeg trial may have resulted in a non-guilty verdict, which Campbell viewed as a “miscarriage of justice”. This decision showed his traditionalist and narrow style.

Outside of his political and legal careers, Campbell was heavily involved in other business and community efforts in Kingston and area.[11] He served as the Dean of the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University in Kingston, and had business interests in railway companies, insurance companies, and banks. His business ventures allowed him to create lucrative relationships that helped him in his political career. For example, Campbell was vice-president of the Isolated Risk Fire Insurance Company. Alexander Mackenzie, the second Prime Minister of Canada, was the president of the company. He also had connections with many prominent Kingston families, including the Cartwright and Campbell families.

Sir Alexander Campbell is remembered for his role as a trusted advisor to important government officials and a political manager.[12] He is best known, however, as an attendant of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. 

 

[1] “Sir Alexander Campbell” in The Canadian Encyclopedia, by Mel Hurtig (Canada: The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2001), online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-alexander-campbell/> [Hurtig]; Canada, Library of Parliament, “The Hon Sir Alexander Campbell”, Parliamentarian File, online: <www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=0ddd1e27-0568-4aa0-a1dc-2d2ccd31e2a9&Language=E&Section=FederalExperience> [Parliament].

[2] Donald Swainson, Dictionary of Canadian Biography (Toronto: University of Toronto/Université Laval, 1990), sub verbo “Campbell, Sir Alexander”, online:  <www.biographi.ca/en/bio/campbell_alexander_12E.html>.

[3] Hurtig, supra note 1.

[4] Library and Archives Canada, "Sir Alexander Campbell", Canadian Confederation, People, online: <www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/023001-4000.10-e.html> [Canadian Confederation].

[5] Swainson, supra note 2.

[6] Hurtig, supra note 1.

[7] Library and Archives Canada, "The Fathers", Province of Canada Delegates, online: <epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/ic/can_digital_collections/charlottetown/fathers/campbell.html>. 

[8] Canadian Confederation, supra note 4.

[9] Hurtig, supra note 1.

[10] Swainson, supra note 2.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Hurtig, supra note 1.

Goodbye Deirdre, Hello Allison!

We are excited to introduce our newest member of the team, Allison Numerow. She will be attempting to replace the irreplaceable Deirdre Fleming as the fifth member of the Law and Social Media team. Allison is a second-year student here at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. As a 20-something born into the age of technology, she is eager to use social media to connect readers to topics relevant to the Constitution and to continue to develop her research and writing skills. She’s excited to join the other bloggers and bring you thought-provoking and creative posts every day!

Born and raised in Calgary, Allison left Texas of the North when she turned 18 to attend McGill University. There she achieved a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. During her four years in Montreal, she worked in two music cognition laboratories, running experiments on willing victims… I mean students. She conducted experiments on both how babies respond to musical stimuli and dance, as well as the effects that different types of music had on neutral visual stimuli. Outside of classes Allison was a member of a pop music a cappella ensemble because she wanted her life to resemble Pitch Perfect (and still does!).

In the final year of her degree, Allison realized that her education would, of course, require more education. Hence, after graduation she found herself at U of A Law. Allison used her first year at the U of A to educate herself both on the law as well as contemporary issues in the legal world. As she soon discovered, Constitutional Law was her favourite class. Law and Social Media provides a platform for Allison to explore the Constitution and its impact on current issues, evolving case law, and other relevant topics. As a classically trained singer and Harry Potter “nerd”, she is excited to combine her interests with the Constitution. This semester, she will explore popular music from 1867, as well as the potential constitutional issues in some of the laws of the magical wizarding world, to name a few. She will also explore other important and up-and-coming topics including drones and Dolly the Sheep.

When she isn’t watching the Bachelor, Allison is busy working on her colour-by-numbers colouring book. Her friends and family say she’s too old for such hobbies, but she insists that when you have no artistic ability, creative assistance is necessary.

What to Expect from The Dominion - Winter Term 2017

Are you planning to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada’s Confederation? Will July 1st, 2017, be a regular Canada Day celebration for you? Or do you even celebrate Canada Day at all?

Our first week back blogging introduces the new semester and reminds readers why this project is important to us, the writers, as law students. Each week follows a different theme; Mondays’ posts introduce each one.

A year ago the Law and Social Media team wrote collectively as Ms. Suffragette to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women’s voting rights in Alberta. One week was dedicated to the Famous Five women who challenged the meaning of the word “person”. In the spirit of celebrating influential Canadian politicians, next week’s theme is Founding Fathers of Confederation.

Ever the egalitarians, later in the term we will biograph Women of Confederation. We recognize individuals who made history by working hard for what they believed in. Like suffragists who advocated and agitated for political rights, the Founding Fathers and Mothers of Confederation wanted to change the governing structure of early “Canada”.

Some of our posts, like yesterday’s, review the Centre for Constitutional Studies speaking events. The CCS regularly hosts acclaimed legal experts who make constitutional law both informative and fun.

As we wrote last semester, Confederation and the preceding decades did not establish a foundation of equality and independence for indigenous peoples living in British North America. Therefore, as we recognize Canada’s sesquicentenary, we are mindful that it can be problematic to celebrate laws that created a legacy of Indigenous oppression. Reconciliation and healing must be part of our collective future and we will explore this in light of celebrations of the birth of modern Canada as we know it. In the words of Chief Dr. Robert Joseph, “Our future, and the well-being of all our children rests with the kind of relationship we build today.”

Also last semester, we introduced the constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments (sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867). These distinctions between duties and powers delegated to the respective levels of government pervade our legal system and case law on jurisdiction. Therefore, we will expand on it further using interesting topics like polygamy, firearms, and even a shout-out to the annual student-run Law Show in February.

The federal Department of Canadian Heritage is promoting nationwide celebration projects. For example, one of the official signature projects focuses on engaging Canadians—coast to coast to coast—in reconciliation. The University of Alberta will host some projects as well; click here to check them out.

Most Canadian cities host events sporadically throughout the year. If you’re in Edmonton (as we are) make sure you check out Ice on Whyte (we will be!). It’s coming up soon to take advantage of the cooler temperatures and features ice carving and other family-friendly activities. Although Ice on Whyte is in its 14th year, this year it also boasts activities to celebrate Canada 150.

Over the next 12 weeks, we’ll keep you posted on more fun and interesting events that help understand the reasons for the BNA Act and why its successor, the 1982 Constitution, is so fundamental to living in Canada. So stay tuned!

The Dominion, Back at it Again!

Hello Readers! Here at the Dominion we are happy to be back writing to you about important constitutional topics relating to the British North America Act. After a brief hiatus from the blogging world during our Christmas Break we are back better than ever here in 2017! Thank you for all your support and readership in 2016; we hope to continue to provide you with some insight into important and pressing constitutional issues this semester.

Our team has changed a bit since we last posted. Deirdre Fleming has left for exchange in New Zealand (lucky her!), and Allison Numerow has joined the project in her place. We wish Deirdre all the best on her exchange and we are sure she is having a blast across the pond! Allison will be providing you with a brief introduction later in the week so that you can learn a bit more about her.

Enough about us, now back to the project itself. Did you know that the year 2017 marks Canada’s 150th birthday? Crazy! In honour of this historic year, our law and social media project will be focussing the content exclusively on topics relating to the British North America Act and events celebrating Canada’s sesquicentennial. If you are interested in Canada 150 events on the University of Alberta campus click here! The link will be continuously updated as more events are finalized. We will also be posting links to some Faculty of Law events relating to important constitutional questions! This Thursday the Centre for Constitutional Studies is presenting a discussion entitled “I wanna talk to my lawyer” regarding the right to seek counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter. If you have ever wanted to learn more about the right to counsel from the faculty’s own Professor Steven Penney, come check it out. Click here if you are interested in attending, the location, date and time are listed.

Although majority of our content this semester will focus on Canadian topics, the United States presidential inauguration this upcoming Friday is too important to ignore. With Trump’s inauguration approaching, issues involving freedom of speech are a popular topic within mainstream and social media. Should a president elect be able to say whatever he desires on his own personal social media? Do any regulations exist that prevent such a prominent figure from spewing out hate-filled comments? Is there a difference between regulating mainstream media and personal social media? All of these questions are currently contentious and pressing. To address the controversy surrounding the future United States president, this week we will be focussing on freedom of speech and how the Canadian Charter regulates speech. Check back this week to see what barriers to free speech exist in Canadian society, and whether these barriers would change how Trump is able to present himself in the media.

Moving Forward

We at the Dominion want to thank the community at the Faculty of Law for voicing their perspectives on the Canons article. As always, we want to bring important issues to the community’s attention and begin a productive conversation to make our school a better place. We would like to thank the Canons editors for removing the article and we appreciate the author's heartfelt apology. Together with Canons, we want to move forward constructively.

As per the email circulated to students and faculty on Nov. 24, the Vice Dean is looking into the matter and Dean Paton has called a Town Hall for Wednesday, Nov. 30 at 12:15 pm. We encourage everyone to use this forum to express their further concerns, and we have now closed the comments on our post.

Between Two Plants: SCC Edition

Dear Madam or Sir,

Thank you for tuning in to the season finale of "The Dominion".  We respectfully submit this interview with The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell S. Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada.  The inner workings and procedures of the Court were somewhat of a mystery to us, so we consider ourselves very fortunate to have had the opportunity to speak to a currently serving member of that body.  We thank Justice Brown for his support of both the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta and for the Law and Social Media project.

 

 

See You in 2017,

The Dominion

Be Successful, Just Not Too Successful: A Perspective on Clinton's Loss

Dear Sir or Madam:

Last week’s US presidential election is still a controversial topic. People around the world are still forming opinions, questions, and trying to fathom how such a controversial candidate won the White House. One facet of the debate that remains is wondering just how did Hillary Clinton lose? It seems that many people thought she had the race in the bag. The polls suggested she would win, rational thought would seem to suggest she would win, experts suggested she would win;¹ but come Election Day everything that suggested she would win was incorrect. Surprisingly, Clinton did not just lose; Trump won in an unpredictable landslide victory. As the election results continued to finalize, the hope of watching the first female president win the highest seat in the land vanished.

Where do these results leave us? As a woman writing this post, it leaves me feeling somewhat demoralized and frustrated. People seek out university and college educations with the ideal that they can be anything they desire; provided that they put in the required work to achieve these goals. Hard work pays off, a statement seemingly without gender implications, something many of us are taught from a young age. We enter into these institutions with hopes of becoming a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, an artist, or maybe even a president one day. If this recent election has taught me anything however, the sentiment that you can be anything may be true; but women will struggle much harder to achieve these goals than men.

Political analysts trying to make sense of Trump’s win have developed many theories as to why Clinton lost. Some argue that Americans were so frustrated by traditional political leadership that they voted for the candidate resembling nothing of a career politician.²  Others point to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton driving away some educated voters.³ While the loss is likely explained by a multitude of factors, one recurring speculation is she lost, at least in part, because she is a woman.⁴

Clinton’s campaign focussed on shattering the most salient glass ceiling in the world, ultimately proving unsuccessful. The Democratic nominee was clearly the more qualified candidate with a long political career, successful law practice, and experience as First Lady of the United States. Trump, the Republican candidate, has no political background, and his resume lacks credentials typically fit for the White House. D. Watkins, an Editor-at-Large for Salon and a professor at the University of Baltimore, suggests, “Donald Trump may be the most unqualified person to ever run for office in America.”⁵ Now he may be the most unqualified person to ever win. If hard work truly does pay off, Clinton should have won. She worked her whole life gaining political and practical experience to make her fit to be president. Logically, the person fit for the job and with the most relevant experience should win. This election tells us something different.

Marie Henein, a successful legal partner with Henein Hutchison, suggests that while we may live in what we think is a progressive society, society still struggles with women in positions of power.⁶ When women attempt to reach these positions of power, society and the media react with a negative lens. Instead of highlighting Hillary Clinton’s remarkable career accomplishments, media constantly shifted focus to her “nasty” demeanour and her wardrobe. While considering a potential president of the United States, are we seriously worrying about where her pantsuits are made? The election results are disappointing and continue to deliver a disheartening message to women: the glass ceiling is not going to be broken any time soon.

America demanded change and had the chance to inflict it by electing the first female president. Instead, they chose wild media antics, racism, xenophobia and bigotry. What this leaves women with is the sad reality that America is more sexist than racist; but unfortunately it is both.⁷ As women, we will continue to struggle moving forward to shatter that resilient glass ceiling. Hopefully one day in the near future we will, so that future generations can grow up truly believing women can be anything they desire; even president of the United States. Until then, as Henein so eloquently states, “You can hold office, just not the highest one. You can succeed, just not too much. I’m going to say it; she lost because she is a woman. If she was a man, she would be president-elect today. Plain and simple.”⁸

Still hoping one day the ceiling will shatter,

The Dominion

 

 

¹ “Presidential Poll Tracker” (8 November 2016), CBC News, online: <www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uspolltracker/>.

² Chris Cillizza, "One of Hillary Clinton’s top aides nailed exactly why she lost”, The Washington Post. (14 November 2016), online: <www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/14/one-of-hillary-clintons-top-aides-nailed-exactly-why-she-lost/>.

³ “Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Her top opinion researchers answers” (14 November 2016), CBS News, online: <www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-her-top-opinion-researcher-answers/>.

⁴ Marie Henein, “Thank you, Hillary. Now women know retreat is not an option”, The Globe and Mail. (10 November 2016), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/thank-you-hillary-women-now-know-retreat-is-not-an-option/article32803341/>. 

⁵ D Watkins, “Is America more racist, or more sexist? Admittedly, it’s a tough call” Salon. (30 October 2016), online: <www.salon.com/2016/10/30/is-america-more-racist-or-more-sexist-admittedly-its-a-tough-call/>.

⁶ Henein, supra note 4.

⁷ Watkins, supra note 5.

⁸ Henein, supra note 4.

We Will Remember Them

Dear Sir or Madam,

We have nothing to say today but "Thank you".

If you would like to join us in expressing our gratitude, here is a list of Remembrance Day ceremonies in Edmonton today.  It is worth noting that one of the largest ceremonies in the province takes place on our very own campus.  Please be at the Butterdome and seated by 10:00am if you would like to attend.

Lest We Forget,

The Dominion

 

 

 

 

Trump will not overshadow you: Continuing to remember our Canadian military

Dear Sir or Madam,

Here at the Dominion, we understand that the results of Tuesday’s American presidential election have become a contentious topic around the world. People are left with opinions, questions, and utter bewilderment. As Canadians, many of us find ourselves more thankful than ever to live in such a free, tolerant, and welcoming society. The United States election, if anything, has shown us how truly blessed we are to live in this great nation. That is why we must honour and remember the brave men and women who risk their lives to protect our country from threats of violence and hatred. As such, we will address the US presidential election next week, but today and tomorrow we will not let it overshadow the remembrance we duly owe our Canadian military.

This week we continue to remember all the courageous men and women who have served our country. We honour those who came before us, fighting endlessly and powerfully so that we can live in a free society. Further, we admire the men and women who continue to serve and protect our country. While we honour the Canadian Forces’ fight both at home and overseas, today we focus on the government branch that primarily provides support to their retirees. Today, we discuss Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and the services they provide.

Veterans Affairs Canada is a department of the Government of Canada that provides services to veterans, former and current serving Canadian Armed Forces soldiers, and former and current RCMP officers.¹ The mission of VAC is:

 

“To provide exemplary, client-centred services and benefits that respond to the needs of veterans, our other clients and their families, in recognition of their services to Canada; and to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians.”²

 

Services the department provide include: financial support, rehabilitation services, services to aid veterans in their transition to civilian life, mental health support, and the hiring of veterans  within the Government of Canada.³ Under these service categories some of the notable programs provided include: veterans allowances, pension advocacy, health care, disability pensions, and commemoration.⁴

The department recognizes that numerous people generally understand a veteran to be someone who has served in the First World War, Second World War, or Korean War.⁵ The VAC’s definition includes these criteria, but also adds that “any former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who releases with an honourable discharge and who successfully underwent basic training” qualifies.⁶ The department recognizes that it is crucial all members of the Canadian Forces receive continued support after their discharge from the military.

In addition to support services, Veterans Affairs Canada is also responsible for the Canada Remembers program. The program is responsible for Remembrance Day services across the country, and aims to “keep alive” sacrifices of our great military.⁷ Formal services help recognize achievements of our military, as well as remind Canadians of the sacrifice these individuals have made for the rest of us. Canada Remembers is a way for the federal government to honour the service of thousands of brave men and women, and encourage all generations to remember where their freedom came from. As Veterans Affairs Canada so eloquently states, “although many of us cannot actually "remember", we owe it to those who have served to learn, to understand, and to appreciate the task they have undertaken.”⁸

 

Your humble and grateful servants,

The Dominion

 

 

¹ “Mandate, Mission, Vision, Values and Ethics”, Veterans Affairs Canada, online: <www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/mandate>. [Mandate]

² Ibid.

³ “Services”, Veterans Affairs Canada, online: <www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services>.

⁴ Mandate, supra note 1.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ “About Canada Remembers”, Veterans Affairs Canada, online <www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/about-canada-remembers>.

⁸ Ibid.